Adventure Gamers - Forums

Jackal - 17 October 2014 05:48 PM

No. This is complete bunk.

It can certainly be true on an individual basis: “I don’t like this, so I won’t buy it, because nothing is better than something I won’t like.” But conflating that with “I don’t like something, therefore it is bad” is mistake number one. And to extend that to “I don’t like something, therefore the developer should have made it how I like it or not made it at all” is exactly the kind of nauseating hubris I was referring to earlier. We see the same nonsense every time people whine about pixel art—or Myst-style games, or hidden object games, or you-name-it throughout the years. It’s just as utterly ignorant no matter what the subject.

These are not bridges with a functional purpose and measurable characteristics of success. Games are art, and so long as some people value and enjoy an artist’s creation, something is always better than nothing. To say otherwise is to claim that one person’s (or group’s) tastes and opinions are inherently superior than others’, which of course is idiotic.

I know you probably hate when I agree with you, Jackal, but this is absolutely spot on.  Bravo, Sir.

Drusain - 17 October 2014 01:11 PM

As far as the Dr John here, I’m not exactly sure what you’re experiencing, but both Historical Voodoo and Current Voodoo are definitely in the remake. Historical Voodoo is highlighted because it triggers the “Marie Laveau” subtopic and “Current Voodoo” is highlighted because it triggers the “Hoodoo” subtopic.

Hm i dont think it showed up for me. I got black voodoo, and historical, but not current or hoodoo. As for highlighting, personally i think consistency is better. 95% of the time you can advance with just the highlighted responses and then occasionally it deviates because something is considered a puzzle..

Lambonius - 17 October 2014 06:09 PM

Jackal - 17 October 2014 05:48 PM

No. This is complete bunk.

It can certainly be true on an individual basis: “I don’t like this, so I won’t buy it, because nothing is better than something I won’t like.” But conflating that with “I don’t like something, therefore it is bad” is mistake number one. And to extend that to “I don’t like something, therefore the developer should have made it how I like it or not made it at all” is exactly the kind of nauseating hubris I was referring to earlier. We see the same nonsense every time people whine about pixel art—or Myst-style games, or hidden object games, or you-name-it throughout the years. It’s just as utterly ignorant no matter what the subject.

These are not bridges with a functional purpose and measurable characteristics of success. Games are art, and so long as some people value and enjoy an artist’s creation, something is always better than nothing. To say otherwise is to claim that one person’s (or group’s) tastes and opinions are inherently superior than others’, which of course is idiotic.

I know you probably hate when I agree with you, Jackal, but this is absolutely spot on.  Bravo, Sir.

At least, I’m in the same boat. Completely agree with Jackal. All revolves in the old stuff of “I like it, I don’t like it”. Taste is taste, if you don’t like some of the stuff implemented in a game that does not mean it is bad as a whole and, worst, that the game should not be done.

The criticisms of this game are really overblown.  I’ve been playing it for a while this evening, and honestly, I think it’s great.  None of the animation lag issues I had with Moebius are present in this game at all.  On the contrary, the animations are smooth, responsive, and generally fairly realistic.  You can tell they used motion capture for a lot of it.  Also, the dialog animations are actually really impressive—characters look around and emote fairly realistically, and some effects, like the furrowing of brows and wrinkling of certain characters’ foreheads, are really very striking.  Tonally, the game feels exactly like the original; the music, voice acting, even the graphics all feel familiar, but somehow moodier.  When I saw initial screenshots, I felt like some were tonally a bit too dark, but it doesn’t feel that way when playing.  I’ve played the original several times, but it’s not etched into my memory the way some other Sierra games are, and I honestly can’t figure out where they’ve changed story elements, except to say that the first few days do seem to move along at a bit faster pace than I remember.  The pace increase feels welcome though, and the narration is absolutely 110% better than the original.  She has all of the same creole accent and charm as the original, but without the excruciating slowness of delivery. 

As far as the other voice acting goes, it’s all very solid, even great at times.  I don’t think Jason Victor’s Gabe is quite as good as Tim Curry’s original was, but it certainly fits the character, and you get used to it pretty quickly.  For my money, his version IS better than Tim’s was in GK3 though, and definitely better than Dean Erickson in GK2.  (Every actor in this game is better than GK2, but that’s another story.)  All the other characters sound great, and I honestly think some of the actors do a BETTER job here than the Hollywood originals did.  Dr. John is a good example.  As much as I love Michael Dorn, his creole accent was pretty bad—the actor they got this time around sounds much more natural.

Anyway, color me impressed.  This is a significant improvement over Moebius in almost every way, and in some ways is better than the original GK.

This thread is moving with lighting speed. I waited to finish day 1 before commenting ( unlike some people who haven´t even played the game). First of all it is easy to notice that the game is improvement over the previous Phoenix Online games. I liked Cognition, even voted for the game of the year (and I wasn´t the only one since the game got readers choice award)and thought that Moebius was an ok game.

This remake looks better, the animations are better and the cutscenes look really good. I played Monkey Island Special Editions, and this remake is better in almost every way to that remake and I don´t remember that it got so many negative comments. There are things that I dont like: Gabriel´s look - it looks like some teenager who didn´t even start shaving ( now compare that to Gabriel from the original, with his messy hair and all).
I didn´t have any techical problems, or bugs but I am still early in the game. The voice acting will always be a subject for debates, since the original game had such fantastic actors. I like new Grace´s voice, not as much as I liked Leah Remini who was really good as Grace. Gabriel´s voice was a tough call, at first it sounded like a cheap imitation of Tim Curry, but I got used to it and in a way it´s not much different from the original-

I knew that there would be lot of negative criticizm of this remake, and that is the downside of making remakes, because fans will be angry even if only some minor things are different from the original.

Hi!
I´ve finished the game some days ago and here are my thoughts:

Good:
- Great new stuff!
- Looks damn pretty well (backgrounds and 3d model, the best from all Phoenix Online games)
- Great voice acting (missing Curry but the new voice is very acceptable)
- Great music !!!
- New interaction “parser”
- GK is finally back!

Bad:
- The Napoleon House ad (doesn´t make any sense, Sam is retired…)
- Moonbeam (Dr John told her that i was going??? I only went there because the flyer)
- They are a lot of little animated stuff that were cut away (well.. budget stuff i suppose): gabriel climbing the ladder, mosely taking off his jacket, Gabriel at the typewriter. And some mayor stuff like the ambulance in the lake or the conclaves, but they were replaced by cutscenes. (talking about the conclaves, no boobs now, damn! lol)
- There are some minor glitches and details (like the spanish subtitles), nothing so terrible.
- When showing text above objects (cursor or when pressing space) sometimes spoils some important info to the player

Overall a GREAT remake, recommend it to buy and play! (let´s support GK). (Score: 9/10)

A lot of thanks to the developers!

—————

Hola!
Terminé el juego hace unos días y aquí van mis pensamientos:

Bueno:
- El contenido nuevo está de lujo!
- Se ve espectacular! (los fondos y personajes 3d, lo mejor que se ha visto en juegos de Phoenix Online)
- Muy buenos actores de doblaje (se extraña a Curry, pero es muy aceptable la voz nueva)
- Genial la música!
- El nuevo sistema de interacción/menu
- GK por fin está de vuelta!

Malo:
- El anuncio en el periódico de la Casa de Napoleón no tiene ningún sentido (Sam está retirado…)
- Moonbeam (Dr John le dijo que yo iba a ir?? solamente fui por el afiche)
- Hay muchas pequeñas animaciones que desaparecieron (a causa del presupuesto, supongo..): gabriel subiendo la escalera, Mosely sacándose la chaqueta, Gabriel en la máquina de escribir y alguna cosas mayores como la ambulancia en el lago o las conclaves, pero fueron reemplazadas por escenas cinemáticas. (hablando del conclave, ya no hay boobies! maldición!).
- Hay algunos errores menores y detalles (los subtítulos en español; a ratos no tradujeron palabras), nada muy terrible.
- Al mostrar texto sobre los objetos (al pasar el mouse o apretar espacio) a veces se le adelanta info de la trama, aún no revelados, al jugador

En general, un GRAN remake, le recomiendo a todos que lo compren y jueguen (apoyemos a GK) Puntaje: 9/10

Gracias totales a los realizadores!

Was the game reworked so that there are no dead ends? (allow me to try and preempt: yes, the original had them. Maybe less than KQ5 but they were definitely there)

cesarbittar - 17 October 2014 02:35 AM

Hey all,

I’m probably going to regret this post tomorrow, but there are some things I’d like to say.

As head of Phoenix Online Studios, my experience with the Adventure Community in general, and especially the community from this site, has left me confused to the point where I cannot grasp the great amounts of negativity towards the same genre that you are seemingly supporting. 

Adventure Games “comeback” doesn’t mean these games are actually selling like pancakes. If you look at the kickstarters, you can get a pretty good idea of the budget for some of these games. Those are extremely small budgets compared to the ones from the 90s, and more if you keep in mind that these games are way more complex to make these days than they were back in the 90s.

Phoenix Online has been updating its tools for each game, and every game is a bit better than the previous one. We do not have millions of dollars to invest all at once, and as proud as I am of my team, they are not industry veterans but really passionate kids that are learning every step of the way.

I understand the sensitivities around such a big franchise as Gabriel Knight and those revolving around the remake of a classic. Believe me, I’m a number 1 fan of this franchise and even some of the choices made I was against. That said, I’m really proud of this product and I believe it’s the best looking game we have ever produced, knowing that there is always room for improvement. But, understand, and this is crucial to understand, and I talk about these indies efforts in general as I know the developing community well enough by now, that most of these games, and certainly this one in particular, are made on a very small budget, where people are making less than they’d make working at a Mcdonald’s, only driven by the passion to make games for your enjoyment.

There might be a real chance that Activision orders a GK4 with a real budget. Whether we develop it or someone else, that’s still to be seen, but all this negativity might only result in driving them away from pursuing such a goal. Which is precisely what I don’t understand. You should be behind these efforts one hundred percent at least in spirit. Phoenix Online may not make another adventure game, and that’s simply a loss to the adventure community in general as we would have only managed to get better and better with each delivery until we eventually go to the point of making our masterpiece, whatever that might be. Allowing a studio full of passion for the adventure genre to grow, instead of driving it away, might not have been such a bad idea. And I say this for every indie studio out there.

Just know that if this game had had a 2 million dollars budget like Dreamfall Chapters has, it would have been much much polished and shiny. Which *might* be the budget under a publisher like Activision for a GK4.

But again, if you guys aren’t behind this revival, and will deem a game unworthy because we indie studios don’t have the infrastructure that Sierra and LucasArts had back in the day, or for whatever reasons you might have, then it’s all lost before adventures really make a comeback. Like they say, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”, and if you want all of these developers to ever become a bit of what the golden studios were back in the day, they will need your support to spread the word about the hard work they are doing in order to bring this genre back to where it belongs. At the end, the only way things will flourish and get better is with people uniting towards this goal. Developers are doing their part by enduring long hours with very little compensation. It’s up for communities to unite to really drive that effort home so that the next one looks and feels better.

I apologize in advance if I’ve offended anyone with my words, but I wanted to share a bit of my insight. Thanks to all that have enjoyed the game, spread the good word, and continue to support the adventure genre.

I don’t post much here but lurk and read a lot. I did want to respond to this and say I 100% agree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and how they spend their money, but I feel it’s wrong to say that nothing is better than something. Each game POS makes has shown improvement and I would like to see them continue to make games. Since they are an indie developer I’m sure they are more than open to constructive criticism, so why not keep it constructive rather than be demeaning. Whether or not you support the project with your money is your choice, but there are better ways to get your point across about what you don’t like rather than blast a group of people doing something they love for a genre we all enjoy. POS getting better at their craft will only benefit us all in the long run.

I was probably a little more critical of Moebius than I should of been, but it was mainly because I had just played Heroines Quest which was the type of adventure game I’ve been waiting for pretty much since QFG4. The Quest for Glory series is my favorite series of the older adventure games and Heroines Quest just knocked it out of the park for me. I really wish activision gave crystal shard the budget and opportunity they deserve and let them revive the QFG series if of course they wanted to take on that sort of project. Also having played a tale of two kingdoms and really enjoying that game as well, I just really admire what the folks over at Crystal Shard do on a very limited budget and that factored into my Moebius experience.

Lambonius - 17 October 2014 10:30 PM

The criticisms of this game are really overblown.  I’ve been playing it for a while this evening, and honestly, I think it’s great.  None of the animation lag issues I had with Moebius are present in this game at all.  On the contrary, the animations are smooth, responsive, and generally fairly realistic.  You can tell they used motion capture for a lot of it.  Also, the dialog animations are actually really impressive—characters look around and emote fairly realistically, and some effects, like the furrowing of brows and wrinkling of certain characters’ foreheads, are really very striking.  Tonally, the game feels exactly like the original; the music, voice acting, even the graphics all feel familiar, but somehow moodier.  When I saw initial screenshots, I felt like some were tonally a bit too dark, but it doesn’t feel that way when playing.  I’ve played the original several times, but it’s not etched into my memory the way some other Sierra games are, and I honestly can’t figure out where they’ve changed story elements, except to say that the first few days do seem to move along at a bit faster pace than I remember.  The pace increase feels welcome though, and the narration is absolutely 110% better than the original.  She has all of the same creole accent and charm as the original, but without the excruciating slowness of delivery. 

As far as the other voice acting goes, it’s all very solid, even great at times.  I don’t think Jason Victor’s Gabe is quite as good as Tim Curry’s original was, but it certainly fits the character, and you get used to it pretty quickly.  For my money, his version IS better than Tim’s was in GK3 though, and definitely better than Dean Erickson in GK2.  (Every actor in this game is better than GK2, but that’s another story.)  All the other characters sound great, and I honestly think some of the actors do a BETTER job here than the Hollywood originals did.  Dr. John is a good example.  As much as I love Michael Dorn, his creole accent was pretty bad—the actor they got this time around sounds much more natural.

Anyway, color me impressed.  This is a significant improvement over Moebius in almost every way, and in some ways is better than the original GK.

Exactly my sentiments aswel. (aside from the GK2 comment obviousy) I’m very impressed sofar.

In fact, my only gripe sofar, is that the characters feel as they are floating ontop of the landscape, rather than being a part of it.
Not being an expert in this, I don’t actually understand why….there are some secondary characters that lack the shading, so that could explain it….but even the ones that do have shading, do tend to float a bit.
Is it the high resolution/sharpness? I really have no clue. I tried some other 3D games, but I don’t get the same effect somehow.

So, all in all, a game that does a superb job of renewing the original games, with only a few technical glitches, like the character floating and walking through another.
That is a solid 8.5 out of 10 score in my book.

EDIT:
And the metacritic score is now 75 and in the green. Congrats to Pinkerton Road and PO studio’s. It may sound silly, but not many adventures get beyond a mixed score on Metacritic, so that counts for something.

A very good review got just added, penned up by a vetaran and ‘virgin’ player of the GK series: http://www.incgamers.com/2014/10/gabriel-knight-sins-of-the-fathers-remake-review

Excellent stuff!

subbi - 18 October 2014 06:06 AM

In fact, my only gripe sofar, is that the characters feel as they are floating ontop of the landscape, rather than being a part of it.
Not being an expert in this, I don’t actually understand why….there are some secondary characters that lack the shading, so that could explain it….but even the ones that do have shading, do tend to float a bit.
Is it the high resolution/sharpness? I really have no clue. I tried some other 3D games, but I don’t get the same effect somehow.

If your system can handle it, try turning the anti-aliasing all the way up to 8x.  This is a separate setting from the launcher graphics options where you select resolution and graphic quality.  Anti-aliasing can only be adjusted in-game from the Display tab in the Options menu.  It might help alleviate some of the sharp edges you’re seeing on the 3D characters and make them feel a touch more connected to the BGs.  It’ll make less powerful systems chug though, so beware. 

I have a pretty new laptop, but it has no 3D gaming specs. My graphics card is a GT840M, which is decent, but not spectacular

I did follow your advise to crank up the AA. I set the resolution to 720 widescreen in windowed mode, graphics settings to ” beautiful” (2nd best) and the AA to 4.
More than 4 and the mouse starts to respond a lot slower and it would affect gameplay.

Thanks for the tip, hopefully this helps a bit.

Jackal - 17 October 2014 05:48 PM

Bogi - 17 October 2014 05:26 AM

Sometimes nothing is much better than something. I’m not sure how this “developers vs. players” war is good for the community, but I’m amazed how someone can be so blinded not to see that making bad games only hurts the genre.
And the idea that people should rally behind such a wreck (I’m sorry but it is what it is) like Moebius is setting new standards for living in illusion.

No. This is complete bunk.

It can certainly be true on an individual basis: “I don’t like this, so I won’t buy it, because nothing is better than something I won’t like.” But conflating that with “I don’t like something, therefore it is bad” is mistake number one. And to extend that to “I don’t like something, therefore the developer should have made it how I like it or not made it at all” is exactly the kind of nauseating hubris I was referring to earlier. We see the same nonsense every time people whine about pixel art—or Myst-style games, or hidden object games, or you-name-it throughout the years. It’s just as utterly ignorant no matter what the subject.

Jackal, I also hate that attitude, but the context is a little bit different here. Cesar had posted:

There might be a real chance that Activision orders a GK4 with a real budget. Whether we develop it or someone else, that’s still to be seen, but all this negativity might only result in driving them away from pursuing such a goal. Which is precisely what I don’t understand. You should be behind these efforts one hundred percent at least in spirit.

But again, if you guys aren’t behind this revival, and will deem a game unworthy because we indie studios don’t have the infrastructure that Sierra and LucasArts had back in the day, or for whatever reasons you might have, then it’s all lost before adventures really make a comeback. Like they say, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”, and if you want all of these developers to ever become a bit of what the golden studios were back in the day, they will need your support to spread the word about the hard work they are doing in order to bring this genre back to where it belongs. At the end, the only way things will flourish and get better is with people uniting towards this goal. Developers are doing their part by enduring long hours with very little compensation. It’s up for communities to unite to really drive that effort home so that the next one looks and feels better.

This is coming across as “even if you don’t like our games, you must support us (or at least not criticize us) because (1) we worked sooo hard, and (2) the only way adventure games will ever make a ‘comeback’ is with us.” It’s perfectly legitimate to respond to that by saying “No we don’t, because we don’t like your work, and if it’s between you guys making e.g. a GK4 game and an uncertain future where there might not be a game, or maybe someone better will come along, we’ll take our chances.”

These are not bridges with a functional purpose and measurable characteristics of success. Games are art, and so long as some people value and enjoy an artist’s creation, something is always better than nothing. To say otherwise is to claim that one person’s (or group’s) tastes and opinions are inherently superior than others’, which of course is idiotic.

Yes, there’s some truth to that, but if you take the argument to its logical conclusion it would mean that we can never make any quality distinctions when it comes to art, that there is no such thing as talent or skill, just different tastes. But I’m comfortable claiming that my backgrounds are not as good as Bill Tiller’s, that Wall-E is a better movie than Food Fight, and so on, and consider this to be a “truth” above mere personal preference.

I also think there’s an important difference between saying “I don’t like this because it’s 3D-rendered graphics, and I don’t like 3D-rendered graphics” (and same for pixel, cartoon, Myst-style etc.) and “I don’t like this because these 3D-rendered graphics are, in my artistic judgment, poorly done.”

In the first case, someone might draw the conclusion “They shouldn’t have made the game like this, because I don’t like this kind of game,” which is narcissistic and non-constructive. In the second, they might draw the conclusion “They shouldn’t have made the game like this because they weren’t able to execute it well enough, so doing it differently might have led to a better game,” which is in fact constructive.

And people REALLY need to get over this “genre” thing. There is no such thing as a genre—it can’t be hurt, killed, helped, or revived. There are only individual games, around which we create an imaginary box and call it a genre. The quality of Moebius, GK, or any other game has absolutely no bearing on the imaginary box, except inside people’s heads.

Well, yes and no (and note that Cesar was the one who brought it up in the first place). There is such a thing as “adventure games” because they exist as a concept people write about, as a network of inspiration and influence between games, as a market, and as a community. Individual games do not succeed and fail entirely independently of each other, and they help set expectations for the AG “industry” as a whole (price point, production values, bugginess, platform support, features like hotspot reveal and hint systems…). So for these reasons, games can help or hurt the “genre.” And that’s not even considering the emotional component of how a sequel or remake may strengthen or taint a beloved series (whether Monkey Island, Simon the Sorcerer, Broken Sword, Tex Murphy or Gabriel Knight).

But at the same time, the genre is varied enough (and conservative enough) that one game or studio isn’t going to entirely change everything